Thanks mahatma.

as. 

I don't have the recipe for the secret sauce, neither gr8player does.

There's no a secret sauce as baccarat is a mathematically unbeatable game.

My strategy as I already told you is not different to yours only I prefer to bet very few hands or at least I seriously bet very few hands. Call it a very selected trend following strategy, call it whatever you want.
You'll win 30,50 or even 60 units in a single short session, I can't do that as I don't want to lose counterpart sessions getting me 30,50 or 60 units deficit.

My methods are so diluted that the betting frequency will be hugely spread into several shoes. Fluctuations of my betting spots appearance are so great that giving you an average betting ratio per shoe is just ridicolous. An average number could be 3-4 main bets per every 10 shoes.

It'll be my duty to promptly communicate to you my "new" WR as I added to my plan some more frequent patterns, otherwise Lung will kill me right on the table spot.

So we're playing the same game with the same strategy, only I select more my spots.
No secrets, just the assessment of very long WL testings and infinite hours dedicated to this f. game.

Take care and say a genuine hello to your beautiful wife.

as. 






   

 

     

Quote from: Lung Yeh on December 02, 2015, 01:09:59 AM
Now I have my own board?? (Courtesy of Jimske?? Thanks).

Well, after every loss, I shut my mind and move on. Make money from my businesses, sell assets and come back again. Playing baccarat makes me happy. I often console myself when I lose that it might as well be some of my business partners or management screwing up and losing me money too. Same thing except that in baccarat I lose the money myself.

I told myself the last trip will be the LAST trip if I lose. But I often lie. To myself. So I am going to try again. And I am working out with aymbac on the Asian trip. Just to let the forum know that the offer did not die off. But we (Asymbac and me) will have to agree on further disclosure in this forum. Truth is some of us here have no tolerance for different opinions and approaches and are quite vocal, dismissive and condescending to those who have different approaches.

God bless.

Thanks for the confidence.

If we'll ever meet us you won't be disappointed. :-)


as.




   


 

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 09:16:49 PM
The trick to taking advantage of these few opportunities is in positioning yourself first by not getting way behind in the session before reaching these opportunities in the first place. I know how to stay at even real easy. That skill must be learned first. 50/50 bets are great for this purpose. Attacking a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row is easier still.

I hope you like these simple aspects of the game even more.

Well, I have to admit that another very serious roulette player I've known keep saying the same things you are writing. So I begin to trust you.

Coincidentally, more or less, it's the same way of thought I apply at baccarat with 1 billion accuracy.

The differences with baccarat is that here we get a lower mathematical negative edge, finite card distributions and an asymmetrical factor.

So if you've found some positive expectation hints at roulette I think that at baccarat your edge should be higher.

as.

I'm really sorry for Lung loss. Losing control at this game is very easy, it happened to everyone of us.
 
For everyone thinking that every bet will be 50/50 placed with negative expectation with no points of valid intervention no matter what, I just say "LOL".

as.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 01, 2015, 07:33:01 PM
I can't play more than 300 spins in a session. There are often three or four magnificent opportunities that occur every 300 spins.

Even though I strongly think that roulette is an unbeatable game, for some reasons I like this statement.


as.   

 

Quote from: Rouletta on November 25, 2015, 01:47:42 AM
@ AsymBacGuy - Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to explain how do u come up with the 1.56% please.

It seems to me that by playing 9 lines, or 27 numbers for 3 spins with a light progression, the probability for
losing is extremely low. Do u agree....?

Cheers

Rouletta

Hi rouletta!

Considering an european wheel and zero excluded, betting 27 numbers out of 36 means to have a 25% probability of losing each time. So 0,25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 1.5625%.

To get an easier example, let's say you want to hope not to get three red in row.

So 0.50% x 0.50% x 0.50% = 12.5% of losing, that is 1 time every 8.

In fact there are 8 possible dispositions of 3 spins in a row: BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB and RRR. Just one disposition is a losing one.

Since your probability is right the half of the above situation everytime, you'll divide 12.5% 3 times getting 6.25, 3.125 and the final 1.5625 probability.

Unfortunately no matter how many numbers you'll wager, the probability of losing will be proportionally placed.

The highest probability to win when betting roulette numbers on an european wheel is placing 36 numbers out of 37, but it needs 144 units to win just one unit.
The trick to get a profit even betting 36 numbers relies on the fact that some bets are cumulatively placed on 50/50 chances, so getting a 50% return when the zero comes out.

Cheers

as.   
     

Ignoring zero, it should be around 1.56%.
And of course there's no difference to change or not moving bets.   

as.

In a word and if you want to consistently win at baccarat, you must know that the game is asymmetrical by any means.

No one hand will be formed by perfectly symmetrical features for two reasons:

- first, a decent portion of the total hands will be mathematically B shifted;

- secondly, every next hand will be more or less influenced by the cards previously removed.

Just to give a vulgar example, we know that 8s and 9s hugely removed from the deck are going to get more B oriented hands as P chance won't get a fair percentage of natural points not giving the B side an advantage.
Better sayed, any hand not giving the possibility to P chance drawing isn't going to produce an asymmetrical hand giving the B side an advantage.

It's true that shoes' portions rich of 7s and 6s aren't going to form many asymmetrical hands since P side will show more likely 6 or 7 points, but at least we know that B side has the opportunity either to win by drawing or by showing a natural, besides the cut and dried 7-6 scenario.

Anyway, we cannot care a bit about the card counting procedures, as the general dispositions/distributions topic will make the job fo us ITLR.

Therefore the game is asymmetrical for one reason or another.

Statistically the best tool we can take advantage of is studying what happens itlr on each side.

We don't want to guess what happens most in a shoe WHOLLY considered. We want to register each side separately.

Better sayed, we want to know what most likely happens on each side.

Is this a randomly world?

Yes and no.

Most part of it it will.

Nonetheless, itlr some patterns are more likely than others by 100% accuracy.

Back to a perfect strategy plan, meaning the help of a pc software capable to weight the card removal impact, we know that 3/4 of the hands must be B oriented and just nearly more than 1/5 of the total hands (ties included) are P side favored.

Such result come out from a perfect card by card removal effect (with proper burning cards value) dictating that only some hands are BP favored onto a side or another.

Anyway, we don't want to be favorite on every bet we are wagering. We do want to bet some hands where one side is hugely favored over the the counterpart, no matter the cards distribution.

This is a really nonsense.
How could be in the position to be right more often than not if we're not taking account of cards removed from the deck?

For once, the law of averages will help us.

Average card distributions might help one side no matter the third card rule, yet itlr either the asymmetrical factor or the general card distribution must take place at a higher level capable to invert the negative edge values.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it takes some time to this feature to show up but it will.

as.   

 


 






 


 






   

     

I strongly believe (comforted with my results) that the most winning bets part of a given system must come out from B advantaged situations.
I mean that our B winning wagers must encounter a better 8.6/91.4 ratio as there are no other sensible means to win at this game.

We should remember that among the gambling world, baccarat is the only single bet game where we are advantaged to win. The fact that the house will pay us 0.95 to 1 shouldn't affect our mind.
That doesn't mean that we are supposed to make a steady series of Banker bets strategy, we just have to work about selecting the situations where Banker must show its advantage at a higher degree than expected.
We can accomplish this by several ways: studying long term data, confronting them with actual results, evaluating the actual S/AS ratio, taking care of the S outcomes, knowing the limits of the baccarat system, taking advantage of RTM effect, even roughly assessing the cards removed from the deck.

About the last topic, for example a high amount of 7s removed from the deck (aside than lowering the Dragon bet occurence on EZ tables) will reduce the probability to get asymmetrical hands, as any standing 7 point on one side will totally erase the AS possibility.
Not forgetting that the most valuable AS hands are Banker point 4 or 5. Nonetheless, B4 or B5 are totally worthless from an AS point of view if they'll encounter a 6,7,8 or 9 P point.
In a certain sense, whenever Banker has a 4 or a 5 on the initial two cards and the hand will be not asymmetrical we're losing money.
The same if we're winning by a Banker natural. We'll be happy but we shouldn't. 

Another common situation is when a given shoe is particularly rich of naturals on either side.
I recently played a shoe where more than half of the hands were naturals. The thing happened along the entire shoe, it seemed that any 8 or 9 was glued to a zero value card.
From a personal statistical point of view the shoe seemed to be a "normal" shoe, getting 18 columns on each side. 
I finally counted the AS hands and after what I've sayed so far you can guess how many of them have shown up.

as.   








   
       




   











     

So let's pretend we are going to bet Player for whatever reason.

Anytime our Player hand will get a 6,7,8 or 9 point we are on haven territory. No matter the real outcome will be.  This is very important.
Another good scenario besides the above happenings will be whenever Player will get a 5 point and Banker a 4 point, as we have 5/13 cards value (zero and aces) ending up the hand in P favor without further B drawing. Only an 8 would be a disaster, a 9 forming a tie and all other cards forming a symmetrical situation into an asymmetrical spot with a slight P advantage. 

Thus and from a strict hand point of view, about half of the times our P hand won't draw, so the game won't concede any Banker advantage. that means playing the game with a zero negative edge.

Naturally any 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 Player point will be the first condition to get an asymmetrical B favored hand; anyway this first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3,4,5 or 6 point to get an AS hand.

So everytime we bet Player and the actual hand won't be an asymmetrical hand we'll play a perfect 50/50 game with the house, a very good accomplishment.

Conversely, when we are betting the P side and we must draw having the Banker 3,4,5 or 6, we are cumulatively in a very bad shape, having to overcome a 15.86% average negative edge.

Nonetheless, some asymmetrical hands will produce some P side winning hands, and some of them are even favorite to win (as depicted on the above 5-4 scenario, or other rich Player favored card shoes).

You see that is the word "average" to confuse us.

We know that the better theorical option itlr will be to bet everytime Banker, producing a lower disadvantage (0.18%), yet we know that many card distributions won't allow decent propositions even on S/AS ratio and on AS outcomes.
That means that many times we'll get too many or too few AS hands or to get unexpected results from AS hands.

Very long term data suggest that rich and very rich Player shoes have shown a fair S/AS ratio, meaning that some AS hands must have gone in the Player favor no matter the disadvantage.
Of course, some very rich Player shoes had provided a larger amount of naturals than expected.

From a general point of view, the most likely outcome to get any natural (on each sides) is an 8 or 9 accompanied by a zero value card; at the same time, any 8 and more importantly a 9 removed from the deck will reduce in some way the power of every asymmetrical hand.
Moreover, any winning Banker hand formed by a natural must be considered as a loss, since it won't produce any AS hand.
Let's think about this: for every 20 Banker hands won by a natural point (or any other non symmetrical hand), we'll surely play a 5% taxed game meaning we'are playing 20 to get 19, an i.diot challenge to deal with.

To try getting the best of it we should forget the word "average", otherwise bac players worldwide have been accounting just a loss of 1% or so of the total bets wagered, and that's not the case. (Yes, such very higher losses should be due by bad money managements and side bets placements, but I know many controlled players not betting side bets having lost a well higher 1% amount).

The AS factor shifthing the bac results itlr cannot present itself forever and ever, so the shoe won't have memory on previous unexpected AS results (favoring P side), but it has a sort of memory about how many AS hands will take place per every shoe. Not only by a total number amount, but also about consecutive clusters and many other features.

So if we're betting the B side after some losses and we're looking at a 7 two card point, we are just playing a coin flip 5% taxed situation, no matter how good looks such 7.

Conversely, any no bet hand on P side forming an AS hand is a huge gain for us and must considered not a single loss but a large loss avoided.

Imo every system must take in account this: lowering the 1.24% Player disadvantage on our P bets and raising the AS expectancy on our Banker bets.

The rest is just a confusing world, even if we are guessing right most of the time.
It won't last for sure.

as.








 




 

 











   


   

 

     













 





   


 



   

Hi RW!

The Banker 15.86% average edge going on asymmetrical spots is a foolproof mathematical finding.

Banker can decide what to do (standing or drawing) after having known the Player third card.
From a strict point occurence, there are 19 such situations, in 17 of them Banker will stand, in the remaining two Banker will draw.

In fact, 15.86 x 8.4 = 1.36%.

1.36% is a familiar finding, right?

Actually 1.36% is the resolved bet Player disadvantage, so it seems I worked fancifully but getting some sound results.

Within each asymmetrical spot Banker will stand 17 over 19 times, so it's easy to assume the third card dealt to the Player won't likely help P side, either because it has a zero/small value or because it's too high to most likely ruin the actual two card Player point.

Of course the rule Banker will stand a huge percentage of times is due to avoid the probability to ruin its initial two card point during a most likely unnecessary situation.

Along the way naturally we'll encounter shoes not getting the proper average S/AS hands ratio, otherwise it would be so easy to wait a large portion of a shoe forming a huge S/AS hands deviation shifted to the left, then hugely betting Banker knowing that we can overcome the 1.06% negative edge by a lower S/AS ratio.

So we should work on many other related features, such as the likelihood of having S hands in relationship of some card distributions, the careful study of the actual running S/AS ratio, the real results of the AS hands.

By this perspective, we should think the game just as a constant effort to pick up the AS hands the more than we can, trying to raise the AS/S ratio (now inversed for practical reasons) and to consider a loss every symmetrical hand that will take place (even and even more if it will be a winning bet).

If we'll be able to transform a S/AS 91.4/8.6 ratio into a sensible lower one on our actual bets (we don't need high values, just to erase the negative edge) we can safely say we can beat the game mathematically.
Of course we cannot expect to get lower ratios betting every hand. It's a slow and difficult process.

as.

   








 

     







   

 
 

Btw, the Banker advantage on asymmetrical hands is 15.86% and not 15.7% as previously posted.

On average each side will have a 38% probability to be in the position either to not get an AS hand (Player chance) and to get a possible AS hand (Banker side).

In a word, we know that an average 38% of the time Player won't concede any Banker advantage right at the start of the hand.
At the same time, when Player draws but Banker doesn't show a 3,4,5 or 6 the hand will be symmetrical.
It's the intersection of those two requirements that makes an AS hand possible.

Easy to notice that the situations where Player has a drawing point (62%) don't correspond to the actual Player drawing percentage (50.3%) as some Banker hands will be naturals.

Therefore it might come to our advantage trying to know when a 6,7,8 or 9 could more likely land on Player side because now not only the AS apparition will be impossible but also as those points are mathematically favorite to win a Player bet.
(We shouldn't care the times when we lose the P bet having 6,7 or 8: itlr we are favorite to win).

The opposite situation, that is the bunch of Banker points capable to get an AS hand, will be more difficult to assess as it takes one previous condition to be fulfilled.

The miriad card combinations tend to darken the picture for several reasons.

- first, the 38% value on each side is high variance related; 

- second, a fair percentage of P favorite hands succumb to the higher B points;

- third, not every AS hand will show the same degree of B advantage;

- fourth, due to card distribution, many AS spots will make Player a winner despite its disadvantage;

- fifth, some AS situations aren't so B advantaged. Let's think about P 5 vs B 4.

Despite this, every our Player bet getting a 6,7,8 or 9 point on the first two cards will be a sure favorite to win itlr. Every other scenario (P drawing) will be a sort of disaster (at different degrees) an average of 38% of the time.

Oppositely, every Banker bet NOT getting a 3,4,5 or 6 point wil be a sure loser itlr, because either it loses or it wins 0.95% of our bet. Indeed it will a terrific bet whenever any 3,4,5 or 6 will land on this side having the Player drawing.   

By this new point of view we should consider any Player bet not getting 6,7,8 or 9 a loss no matter the real outcome.
At the same time any Banker bet not forming a 3,4,5 or 6 when Player doesn't draw is a loss, no matter the outcome.

In the intermediate-long run a careful registration of those point situations will help us to ascertain if we were betting the right side or the wrong side.

Naturally and without some possible statistical hint coming on our favor, everything will follow  the old expected percentages.
So the point is: could statistics help us to spot the times when a given ratio will be raised or lowered?

as.   

   

 
 

 
 





       
 



   



 





 



     

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 26, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
I really don't get my head around that statement, the Banker really doesn't have any choice, the rules are fixed.  Also the way you explain it, it is basically any non-natural banker hand.

Because every banker hand will either stand or draw after a third card to the Player, so are you saying, "Player draws a third card, Banker either stands or draws", that is an asymmetrical hand??

If yes, then it is IMO simply a label for a non-natural score.  Where does this 15.7% mathematical edge come from?  A friend of mine claims, that when the Players increases after the third card, it is more likely to win, even though the Banker still has a third card to come.  Also it is fine laying out in the retrospective, no casino lets players bet after any card is drawn that I know of, other than Baccarat 7 up in Singapore. 

As far as I'm concerned if you have a bet on the Player and while the third Banker card is being dealt and squeezed, you shouldn't expect to win unless the Player total is 7 or more, having said that, I have won P bets 1 - Baccarat, all of which tells me nothing before the event.

Because every banker hand will either stand or draw after a third card to the Player, so are you saying, "Player draws a third card, Banker either stands or draws", that is an asymmetrical hand??

YES!!!

To schematize,

AS hand = P drawing + B has 3,4,5 or 6.

Every other scenario will form a Symmetrical hand:

S hand situation #1 = P has 6,7,8 and 9.
S hand situation #2=  P draws and B has 0,1,2,7,8 and 9.


Now, it's mathematically undisputable that whenever an AS hand will take place Banker side will get an average 15.7% edge over the Player.

Ask the WOO site, Jacobsen or any gambling mathematical expert if you don't believe that.

Therefore, the best virtual mathematical edge any player may have playing baccarat will come out whenever is able to bet Banker most than he/she can on those AS hands.

So the virtual plan of a baccarat mathematically winning system can't be other than a given procedure capable to raise the 8.6/91.4 AS/S hands ratio.

Hence now we won't give a damn about the actual otucomes, trend lines, number or distribution of expected patterns and so on. The only task such player is focused on is the probability to fall into those AS hands the more he/she can.

Indeed any player betting Banker whenever no AS hand will take place is mathematically losing even if some, many or all his bets are winning, whereas Player bets on not AS hand are perfectly playing a zero edge with the house (no mathematical player's edge though).

In my defunct post you keep denigrating I exposed a simple way to ascertain if we're long term winners by luck or by some mathematical consideration (statistically derived, of course):

A) our P bets at the end must be showing a perfect (ideal situation) or nearly zero house edge (not a 1.24% negative edge);

B) our B bets at the end must be showing a higher AS/S hands expected ratio capable to lower, erase or invert the house edge.

Utilizing this simple method and after having played and properly registered our bets, we know for sure by an almost 100% certainty (variance will take several hands to be properly assessed)that we are doing really good, we are winning by luck, or we're losing by either a mere variance factor or because we're making a poor betting selection.

Naturally the law of averages dictates will be losers no matter what as the mathematical negative edge will take place anyway and anytime.
So, imo, we have to work on statistical considerations because the game is limited and card dependent.

In conclusion, imo and according to my very long data, every bac player wanting to make a living at this game must evaluate properly what happened on his/her bets placed.

If the sum of all the Banker bets will show a higher 8.6/91.4 AS/S ratio any player is surely doing a good bet selection no matter what system utilized.

If the sum of all the Player bets will show a lower 8.6/91.4 AS/S ratio any player is surely doing a good bet selection no matter what system is using.

Transforming this thought into more practical terms, whenever we'll bet Player we'll simply and primarly hope to get 6,7,8 or 9 P point. Whenever we bet Banker we ought to get more AS hands than we can (3,4,5,6 points, considering bad any other outcome even though it'll produce us a win).

In my poor opinion there are no other mathematical tools to assess if we're playing a winning method.

So we should act statistically to get mathematical and undeniable long term favored outcomes.


as.












 





     
     










   









   




   





   

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 25, 2015, 11:57:51 PM
Three questions;

1) Define what an asymmetrical hand is?

2) do we need to keep a track (count) of how many times the Player side took a third card for any given shoe?

3) why do you need to press the enter key so many times, before hitting the post button, creating a lot of empty space on all your posts?
Yeah, more possible combinations than stars in the universe, apparently.

Glad to give you my answers.

1) An asymmetrical hand is any hand whenever Banker has a choice to decide what to do (stand or draw) after a third card has been dealt to the Player.

2)  Yes. We do need to register both the P and B conditions making an AS apparition.

3) As I'm the worst english writer in the universe.

3 bis: card combinations will limit the AS hands apperance within restricted terms as many card combinations won't take place at all or at very low percentages. Let's think about the probability to get four or fives same rank apparition  in a row; even six zero value cards in a row won't come up very frequently despite their 50% increased likelihood vs any other six card situation.

as.